"I didn't like the book because the characters were unlikeable" - aibu to not understand this criticism?

[BestWatcherInTheUnit]

I read a fair amount of psychological/domestic thrillers, and one of my habits is to look up the reviews on Amazon after I've finished it. Without fail, there will be a fair number of reviews saying that they didn't like the book because the characters are unlikeable. Isn't that par for the course with thrillers? If everyone was super functional and nice then there wouldn't be a plot.

Does it put you off a book if the characters would be unlikeable in real life, even if it's a crime/thriller novel?

Liking the characters isn't really important, but caring about what happens to them is. This can either be because you want things to go right for a character you like, or you want a character you dislike to get their comeuppance. It can be annoying when you are obviously supposed to like a character - usually the heroine in thrillers - and she come across as irritating (usually where the character is a very cliched middle class woman named Kate or Alice banging on about how much she loves her children). But the death knell for a book is not caring either way.

As for reviews - saying the characters are unlikeable might not be a sophisticated reaction, but I don't think that makes it invalid. Reader reviews should reflect what readers thought. Some potential readers will think it's important to like the characters so this information will be useful to them.

Just because someone might not have brilliant literary criticism skills, it doesn't mean they're not entitled to say whether they enjoyed a book, and why. It's easy enough to pick out Amazon reviews that sound like they come from people whose tastes and ideas are broadly similar to yours, and ignore those which talk about things you think are irrelevant.

They don’t have to be likeable but there has to be something about them that interests you/ makes you care about what happens to them. For example, In Lucy Foley’s The Hunting Party I really didn’t care about any of the characters. I finished it only because I was vaguely interested in what happened. But only vaguely, and I decided not to bother with her other books.

I think I'm fine with it as long as it's skilfully done and there's a reason for me to care what happens to the character. If the character is a shit but is also funny, or particularly clever, or pitiable, or just self-aware, things like that, I can get on board with them.

I loathed The Slap because they were all so dull and shallow along with their shiftiness. Made the whole thing seem pointless.

Three of my favourite TV comedies draw heavily from this well - Seinfeld, Arrested Development and It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia. I know this thread is about books, but they're all really good examples of protagonist characters who are flawed and often reprehensible but who are fun to watch. Almost as if there's a "they're arseholes, but they're OUR arseholes" thing going on.

I suppose if the writer has caused such a strong reaction in the reader, then they have done their job well. Characters, likeable or unlikeable, need to be well written and I guess if not liking them ruins our enjoyment of a book, then that's a shame.

I am more inclined to dislike bland or stereotypical characters who do nothing more than drive the plot forward and where there is little or no portrayal of how they tick. But that's my personal preference and I recognise that sometimes even characters like this have their place, depending on the genre and on the purpose of the book.

There are characters you love to hate and then there are just characters you hate - or worse you can’t bring yourself to hate because they’re not interesting enough and are therefore simply ‘unlikable’ - I think there is a difference. I think it’s also more irritating when the author obviously intends for you to like them or route for them and you’re just not feeling it.

Yes I think there's a difference between liking characters and caring about what happens to them. If you don't care about characters not sure there's a point finding out what happens. I'm not interested in pantomime baddie type unbelievable characters. The type that are fine in a children's book maybe. But not an adult book.

What I mean I think is, something like, obvious racist and the reader is supposed to pat themselves on the back for not liking that character.

I gave up on Elinor Oliphant because I didn't like her and didn't give a shit if she was fine or not. 🤷🏻‍♀️

I can recognise and admire the writing in a book where none of the characters are likeable, but I won't enjoy reading it. I won't care what happens to any of them, and so I probably won't finish the book.

Yes I agree with this to a large extent. Although I might finish the book if I am sufficiently intrigued I probably won't be motivated to re-read it. For me both "One Day" and "Gone Girl" fall in to this category.

I often like a book because the characters are unlikeable. I like to find them interesting but not necessary for me to like them. All the criticism Wuthering Heights gets, particularly on MN is part of the reason I find it a compelling read (and reread).

It's important for me to at least care about one of the main characters. If I hate everyone outright, it's hard to care about the outcome of the story.

I find it hard going if I don’t feel invested in at least one character.

I despise Wuthering Heights.

Another person here to agree re The Slap. I thought it was a great book and yet so many ppl on here seem to absolutely hate it.

Its almost as though they thought the author personally embodied all these unpleasant character traits and has set out to annoy them.

Anyhow, I do like a good flawed character myself. And dislike boringly nice characters.

In general literature, some of my favourites are thoroughly and wonderfully appalling. e.g. Thackeray's Becky Sharp and Wharton's Undine Spagg - you go girl. You'd be pushed to find anyone likeable in Madame Bovary or any of the twenty(?) of Zola's Rougon - Macquart novels but they are very engaging ,well-told stories. However, in less literary children's and adult genre fiction, unlikeable protagonists are off-putting.

I don’t have to like the characters but they have to have the literary equivalent of charisma. I need to be in some way invested. I don’t like any characters in Rebecca, Wuthering Heights, Othello, American Psycho, probably lots of others that aren’t springing to mind right now... but I want to know what happens to them anyway.

If characters are loveable or hateful or terrifying or all sorts of things, they can still be readable. The only quality they shouldn’t all have, for me, is being irritating.

2021 I felt the same about The Slap. I didn’t care in the slightest what happened to any of the characters. Possibly because I didn’t like them, but I also enjoyed A Casual Vacancy, with hardly any likeable characters. If I’d liked someone enough to invest time in finding out what happened I might have enjoyed The Slap. I did finish it, because I always do, but was relieved when I got to the end and could give it away.

It’s the same way that I feel about Lord of the Flies. I know it’s a classic, says stuff about human nature etc etc. But I just don’t care what happens to the characters.

It’s a bit like browsing on Facebook! I might come across the profile of someone from school. Whether I nose or not will depend on whether I am interested in what happened to them. I may not have liked them, if they were a bully I might want to see where’ve ended up, but sometimes I barely remember them, or just have no interest in seeing what they are up to. It’s more complex than just ‘nice or nasty’.

I agree with you, it doesn't bother me if all the characters are flawed. I think it's quite interesting when there are flips through the grey scale spectrum throughout a story...keeps the reader on their toes and guards against it being too predictable.

YANBU. It's muddying personal feelings (which aren't a problem and I'm not criticising) and an objective judgement of the book. Or film, or whatever.
I know people who will say they 'hated' a film, book etc but then it turns out that what they mean is closer to 'it was sad/difficult/harrowing'. Not the same thing at all.

Sometimes 'unlikeable' characters make a book interesting, but it is a gamble. Wuthering Heights is one of my favourite book yet all characters are horrible or unlikeable. I found We Need to Talk About Kevin a real slog because I didn't like the narrator, but ultimately its a great book IMO. The has to be something about them, either empathy or intrigue that keep you reading. I'd take unlikeable characters over boring ones any day.

I don’t need to connect with any of the characters nor do I think it’s essential - surely it’s about strength of plot and quality of writing? Literature is full of great books with unlikeable characters. For example, personally I can’t stand either Cathy or Heathcliff (unpleasant people playing games with each other and inflicting misery on everyone around them).

So is the question more “Do I care what happens to them?” rather than “Do I like them?”
It is for me. I don’t like the book if I don’t care what happens to the people in it.
I don’t like Emma, but I do like Austen’s book and the way she writes, and I care about what happens to the people.
I didn’t like the people in the Slap, and I didn’t care about any of them enough to want to find out what happened to them. I wasn’t interested.

Another hater of The Slap here. All vacuous characters with no redeeming qualities. I ploughed on to the end but wish I hadn’t bothered .

We Need to Talk About Kevin, however, I was totally gripped. Loved the writing and how the story unfolded. It left a lasting impression on me - especially as a mother - what if, despite all your efforts, one of your kids turns out to be a complete monster.

If a character is suitably awful or I can't empathise in the way the author clearly wants me to, it really puts me off. For instance I loathe jodi picoult's 'mummy' characters, and would never pick up another of her books.

Agree with previous posters in that I have loved many books with deeply unlikeable characters but I care what happens to them or about their story. If I don’t care about any of the characters I just can’t connect with the book.

@Lalalatte

Another person here to agree re The Slap. I thought it was a great book and yet so many ppl on here seem to absolutely hate it.

Its almost as though they thought the author personally embodied all these unpleasant character traits and has set out to annoy them.

Anyhow, I do like a good flawed character myself. And dislike boringly nice characters.

I didn’t like The Slap because I didn’t care for the narrative tone, rather than disliking individual characters — and having read other things by the same author, I think I just dislike his sensibility, which I find crudely macho and swaggery .

I think a lot depends on the genre, too. People are less likely to pick up a hard-boiled police procedural because they want to spend time with the protagonist than because they’re interested in the workings out of plot, but there are comparatively plotless literary novels where all the investment is in characterisation. Unless you’re happy to spend hours inside a character’s mind, you won’t keep reading. (On the other hand, Humbert Humbert is a monster and Lolita is compellingly readable.)

I do agree with a pp that one of the more minor annoying things you can fall across as a reader is an author who is desperately invested in us liking a character, and loads them with stuff that’s supposed to make them deep, quirky, fascinating etc — but doesn’t pull it off.

I recently read Kate Weinberg’s The Truants, where we’re clearly supposed to be fascinated by quirky, posh, beautiful, crude Georgie, and the mysterious cult lecturer, Lorna, whose classes are hugely oversubscribed and whose brilliance and magnetism are famous.

However, Georgie comes from the school of Lazy Cliché Rebellious Posho Addict, and everything Lorna says or does is completely ordinary. It’s a bit like an obvious influence on The Truants, Donna Tartt’s The Secret History — Julian Morrow is supposed to be a creature of such fascination and intellect that his handpicked students are inspired to hold a bacchanal and commit murder, but he’s so lazily sketched in, it’s hard to see what any of them see in him.